Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Sanity's Journal: Godwin's Law - "law" or cop-out? 24

Journal by Sanity
I have always been uncomfortable with Godwin's Law. For those unfamiliar with it, it states that "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Many people infer from this that whoever, during a debate, makes a comparison with Hitler or Nazis, loses the argument automatically.

It wasn't until a recent email conversation with Cory Doctorow, started by a /. comment of mine, that I was forced to introspect and find the reason for my discomfort.

Here, I outline a fictional debate between Cory and I, using various extracts from our conversations and comments, which I hope gives a fair indication of Cory's viewpoint:

Me: As an Irish citizen living in the US - I have decided that it is time to leave this country - it is starting to look, smell, and act as Germany did during the 1930s.

Cory: It's a shame that [you] violated Godwin's Law, as it gives those who would distract us from the real issue here a handy red herring to toss into the fray, i.e., pointless arguments about the appropriateness of a comparison to Nazi Germany.

Me: I think the comparison with *1930s* Germany is apt, although a comparison with 1940s Germany would not be, you can't invoke Godwin's law when the conversation *really is* about Nazi Germany ;-)

Cory: The point for me of G's law is not its aptness -- I happen to agree that it is an apt analogy, and I speak as someone who lost a significant fraction of his family in the death camps.

The point of G's law is that comparisons to Nazi Germany immediately end all discussion about the subject at hand and instead divert the whole debate to an argument about the aptness of the comparison.

Me: In some cases, however, a discussion about the aptness of the comparison is actually useful, and gets to the core of the issue.

Cory: My point is that Doctorow's Corollary To Godwin's Law is that anyone who wishes to be an effective rhetorician should completely expunge the notion of Nazi comparisons from his bag of tricks, because it creates a vulnerability to an attack that is otherwise neutralized ("My opponent is of such poor judgement and callous insensitivity that he believes it's appropriate to make comparisons to Nazi Germany!").

Me: Well, I am not so sure I agree with you there. *If* a comparison to Nazi Germany is pertinent then an effective rhetorician will be sufficiently skilled to counter this kind of ad hominem attack. They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and what more important lesson for society than the events in Germany during the Nazi period.

Refusing to use such an important lesson of history in debate for fear of exposure to fallacious arguments seems like an unfortunate surrender of a powerful tool for those who wish to fight against fascism. For this reason - I have never been entirely comfortable with Godwin's Law.

Unfortunately this is where the debate must end as I still await Cory's response to my last comment.

I would be curious to hear some third-party opinions on this, since Godwin's Law is one of the Internet debate doctrines that never rang true for me.

Anyway, bottom line is that I now propose:

Clarke's Law: Anyone that invokes Godwin's Law in an argument automatically loses the meta-argument

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Godwin's Law - "law" or cop-out? More

Godwin's Law - "law" or cop-out?

Comments Filter:
  • One doesn't often get to attempt to objectively discuss Godwin's law, so pardon me for making the attempt.

    The problem is that you made a claim "America is starting to look, smell, and act as Germany did during the 1930s" without being at all persuasive to that point. You are really raising more questions than you are explaining or convincing the reader.

    For example: Is the unemployment rate as low as Germany in the 30s (and early 30s or late 30s?) Are laws discriminating against Jews and gays on the rise
    • By focusing on my initial statement you are somewhat missing the point of my article. Cory actually agreed with my initial statement ("The point for me of G's law is not its aptness - I happen to agree that it is an apt analogy"), but he then went on to say "The point of G's law is that comparisons to Nazi Germany immediately end all discussion about the subject at hand and instead divert the whole debate to an argument about the aptness of the comparison". This is the assertion that I disagreed with, and
      • Sorry, let me focus on your primary point. I agree with your overall thesis that invoking Nazi-ism isn't an auto-lost-argument per se, but would note the following:

        1) Your argument appears not to be aimed directly at Godwin's law, which strictly speaking is a matter of discussion-group statistics, but to the implication you mention. Let's call it corollary X: "whoever makes a comparison with Hitler or Nazis, loses the argument automatically".

        2) However, strictly speaking, neither Doctorow's Corollary nor
  • I think Godwin's Law is absolutely true. The idea that bringing up Nazis invalidates your argument is applied too broadly, though. Most of the time, Nazis are brought up as an emotional appeal and are not really relevant to the argument, but that shouldnt invalidate the times when they are relevant.

    For example, I dont think anyone would think it is reasonable to invoke Godwin's Law on a historian discussing WWII.

    The problem is determining if the use of Nazis in the argument is pertinent. Arguing this is p
    • The problem is determining if the use of Nazis in the argument is pertinent.
      The issue here is not whether my comparison was apt - in fact, as is stated in the article - Cory agreed that it was apt, but still felt that Godwin's Law applied.

      Does anyone actually bother to read past the first paragraph before responding?

      • I did read your whole comment before posting. I also gave my opinion. Apparently, my opinion was somewhat obfuscated (or you didnt read past my first paragraph).

        I said that the actual Godwin's law (that the longer an argument goes, the more likely someone is to make a reference to Nazis or Hitler) seems true to me. I also said that the use of Godwin's law to invalidate one side of an argument is too broad.

        I further went on to say that if the context of the usage of Nazis or Hitler were pertinent it should
        • One thing i forgot:

          i think it's somewhat amusing that in your fictional debate, arguing over Godwin's law has become the red herring Cory was claiming bringing up Nazis would be.

          That tends to lend support to the notion that the person who invokes Godwin's law loses the meta argument.

  • I generally agree with the spirit of Godwin's Law, even though it is sometimes invoked in error. Godwin's Law is really an attempt to address a particularly pernicious kind of appeal to emotion [texas.net]. Sometimes comparisons to Hitler really are appropriate, but they're fallacious so much of the time that it's more damaging to assume they're allowable than to assume that they're not. IMO the only way to invoke Hitler without automatically losing the argument and any meta^n argument is to establish in advance, be

    • Like most other replies to this thread - you missed the core point I was making, or rather, the core point Cory made with which I disagreed.

      Cory agreed that the comparison was appropriate, yet Godwin's law still applied, and that it was a poor rhetorical tactic to draw a comparison with Nazi Germany even when such a comparison is apt.

      • No, Ian, I didn't miss it. Are you going to argue with everyone who doesn't see this exactly the way you do? What I was trying to say is that Godwin's Law has value even when the comparison is appropriate, if the lines connecting the reference to the debate haven't been drawn properly. It's kind of related to the "methods matter" argument I wrote about a couple of months ago: sometimes it's important not only to reach a particular destination, but to do so through a particular path. Even if you have a r

        • Are you going to argue with everyone who doesn't see this exactly the way you do?

          No, I am going to point it out when people go off on a strawman tangent about how frequently Nazi analogies are misused when the debate at the center of this article is whether Nazi analogies should be used even when they are appropriate.

          I am trying to have a discussion about the core point of my article.

          In short, I agree with Cory that we're better off with Godwin's Law than without it.

          Much as I am sure Cory values yo

          • OK, I'll make this really simple for you. An effective rhetorician should indeed expunge the notion of Nazi comparisons from his bag of tricks, for the very obvious reason that Nazi comparisons just don't have the desired effect...unless the desired effect is to avoid the real point by derailing the conversation and/or alienating your interlocutor. Simple, no? If you want to be effective, if you want to convince anyone of anything, try something besides comparing people to Hitler. Expecting people to co

            • I forgot to include two other points. First, equivocation is another of those things that an effective rhetorician should expunge from their bag of tricks. Say what you mean, mean what you say, don't keep shifting the focus as you're refuted on each point. Second, if everyone seems to be misunderstanding what you said, don't assume the fault lies with them. Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise.

              • I forgot to include two other points. First, equivocation is another of those things that an effective rhetorician should expunge from their bag of tricks. Say what you mean, mean what you say, don't keep shifting the focus as you're refuted on each point.

                I absolutely agree, although I don't see how the point is relevant to this discussion. Certainly, I have been making exactly the same point since I first posted the article, the fact that you and others have been unable to avoid waxing lyrically on the

            • OK, I'll make this really simple for you.

              Ah, I was just waiting the patronizing tone that make you oh so popular with the ladies....

              An effective rhetorician should indeed expunge the notion of Nazi comparisons from his bag of tricks, for the very obvious reason that Nazi comparisons just don't have the desired effect...unless the desired effect is to avoid the real point by derailing the conversation and/or alienating your interlocutor.

              The Nazi era is not a "trick", it is one of the most important po

              • Ah, I was just waiting the patronizing tone that make you oh so popular with the ladies....

                Single much? I'm not. Now that we've settled who's popular with the ladies (or guys, for that matter) can we dispense with the ad hominem attacks and get back to the topic?

                The Nazi era is not a "trick", it is one of the most important political and social lessons of the 20th Century.

                As was clear from the context, the comparison was the trick, not the Nazi era itself. Misparaphrasing and misquoting are other tric

                • Single much? I'm not. Now that we've settled who's popular with the ladies (or guys, for that matter) can we dispense with the ad hominem attacks and get back to the topic?

                  It was you that was making the ad honimem attack with your patronizing remark. I merely pointed out how your tone has a tendancy to turn an intellectual debate into a personal grudge match. The strategy might work when you are 12, but you should have moved on by now. At the age of 16 most people discover that it is possible to have a

                  • It was you that was making the ad honimem attack with your patronizing remark.

                    Sounds like you need a bit of a lesson in what argumentum ad hominem really is and why it's a fallacy. Here are some links to get you started: 1 [colorado.edu] 2 [nizkor.org] 3 [texas.net] 4 [info-pollution.com]. An ad hominem attack is an attempt to discredit an argument by discrediting a person. If the argument is not even addressed, it cannot be ad hominem; it's merely irrelevant, which I guess would be ab nihilo or some such. Thus, a patronizing or condescending tone - of which y

                    • Sounds like you need a bit of a lesson in what argumentum ad hominem really is and why it's a fallacy. Here are some links to get you started: 1 2 3 4. An ad hominem attack is an attempt to discredit an argument by discrediting a person.

                      Trying to win your argument through patronization, particularly the childish technique of throwing pointless definitions at people is really something you should have elimiatated from your bag of tricks by now. When you patronize someone, you belittle their intelligence a

                    • This is an ad hominem attack by any sane definition you might choose to provide a pointless hyperlink to.

                      Providing information is an ad hominem attack? I give up.

                      the difference between us is that I would rather persuade and educate

                      Bullshit. You just want people to agree with you, and go all wobbly when they don't. I guess you've spent too much time with sycophantic fanboyz that you've forgotten how to deal with people who think for themselves. You have provided no persuasion, no education, only v

                    • I guess you've spent too much time with sycophantic fanboyz that you've forgotten how to deal with people who think for themselves.
                      Ah, Jeff "Tall Poppy Syndrome" Darcy strikes again - I thought you might have grown out of that crap by now, I was wrong.
                      We're done here.
                      Indeed we are, that is the last time I bother trying to have a rational debate with you. What a waste of time.

                    • Tall Poppy, huh? I have to admit I didn't know that one, so I looked it up and was rather amused to see that you're apparently comparing me to a king [worldwideschool.org]. That would make you one of the upstart chieftains, no? How apt.

                    • Tall Poppy, huh? I have to admit I didn't know that one, so I looked it up and was rather amused to see that you're apparently comparing me to a king. That would make you one of the upstart chieftains, no? How apt.

                      Not sure how you found that reference, but the sense in which I intended it is explained in pretty much every result returned by a Google search [google.com].

  • I think one has to separate a couple of issues to understand what's going on here.

    Godwin's law makes a whole lot of sense if one steps back and looks at it from a broader perspective. Why does the probability of Nazis approach 1, and not, say, other important historic events, such as the moon landing, or World War I? I think the reason has to do with people's conception of absolute evil. I think in given debate, by the virtue of being human, people start to invoke stronger and stronger emotions against ea

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

Close